The
document shown below is the official judgement against
Heinz
Barth by the East German judicial system following his trial in 1983.
All comments below are in italics and parenthesis. Document translated 25th
August 2009 from the original court judgement. It is noteworthy that very little
actual evidence is produced below; rather it is a summary of the court's
findings and judgements. One point to note is that names are often abbreviated
and this seems to be for legal reasons. Wherever possible I have shown what I
believe to be the full name, but this has not been possible in every case.

For the trial,
witnesses from Oradour were called to give evidence as to what happened on the
10th June 1944. These included both Robert
Hébras and Marcel Darthout who were survivors from the Laudy Barn. Read the
transcript of Kahn's statement at Dortmund in
conjuction with this trial judgement.

Berlin City-Court (this
was located in East Berlin, capital of the German Democratic Republic from 1949
to 1990)

Serial Number 1009a
(Excerpt)

BS 11/83211-24/82

Table of contents

Order of Judgment

1. In the historical time
frame of the activity of the accused.

2. The personal
circumstances of the accused. (not available at the time of translation)

3. The Circumstances.

3.1. Offenses in the context
of the assassination of Heydrich.

3.2. The destruction of
Oradour.

4. Evidence and Proof
Assessment.

5. Legal Assessment.

6. Sentence and expenses.

In the name of the people,
the criminal case against the former SS-Obersturmführer:

Heinz Barth (note that in
this case "Heinz" is not a shortened form of "Heinrich")

Born on the 15.10.1920 in
Gransee (about 30 miles north of Berlin and in 1983 located within the German
Democratic Republic, which was usually called "East Germany" by member states of NATO
at that time).

Resident at 1430 Gransee,
married, two children, employed.

Citizen of the GDR.
(German Democratic Republic, or in German,
Deutsche Demokratische Republik,
or DDR)

Not previously convicted in
the GDR, in detention while awaiting trial since 14.7.1981 because of war crimes
and crimes against humanity.

Criminal Senate 1a of the
city court of Berlin, capital of the GDR for the public hearing on the 25, 26,
27, 30, 31 May and 1, 2, and 7 June 1983 is for right recognised:

The accused is condemned to
lifelong imprisonment because of multiple war crimes and crimes against
humanity, committed in accordance with Article 6, letters b and c of the statute
for the International Military Court in Nuremberg of the 8.8.1945, in connection
with Article 8 and 91 of the condition of the German Democratic Republic, §§91
Section 2, 93 Section 3 StGB, §1 Section 6 of the introductory law to the penal
code and to the code of criminal procedure, UN convention over the Statute of
Limitations on Nazi war crimes of 26.11.1968.

The accused is permanently
deprived of civic rights. The accused bears the expense of the trial (this
practice, which seems very odd to democratic sensibilities, was normal practice
in East Germany for those persons found guilty. However it was not very
expensive, approximately £250 or so. What happened if the accused could not pay,
I do not know).

Reasons

1. In the historical time
frame of the activity of the accused.

With the erection of the
fascist dictatorship to which millions of people fell victim, the most
reactionary circles of German imperialism had kindled organized terror against
all progressive forces. Directed first against their own people, the tyranny
increased and was realized in the foreign states, occupied as the result of the
aggressive actions opposing the subjugated people with especially ruthless
brutality.

The Czechoslovak Republic
was occupied in March 1939. The goal of this illegal occupation was the
enslavement and annihilation of the Czech people as a nation and their
incorporation into the German empire. In addition, the so-called Reichs
Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was set-up under the guise of the dictation
of Munich.

Already, many times by the
courts of the German Democratic Republic and especially in the judgment of the
Supreme court of the GDR against Globke (Hans Globke) of the 23 July 1963, 1
Zsts (I) 1/63, it has been determined that the Reichs Protectorate was only used
for the realization of the fascist goals by ruthless and brutal suppression. In
the process of the reign of terror, tens of thousands of Czech people, because
of their affiliation to the KPC (Czechoslovak Communist Party) and other
progressive and national organizations, because they belonged to the
intelligencia of their people or were of Jewish descent, were, or because they
did not want to approve of the measures of the Occupation Forces (the German
Army) were pursued and of their freedom were robbed, abused and murdered in huge
numbers.

In the legitimate fight
against the oppressors, after the assassination of the representative of fascist
despotism, SS-Obergruppenführer Heydrich, who became the acting Reichs Protector
on 27.5.1942, the terror suddenly intensified in the whole country. The legal
basis was the abrogation of Czech rights and the subjugation of Czech citizens
under the Third Reich, for their enslavement and extermination policies.

Execution of this objective
was the entire equipment of the organized terror, it was all the courts and
concentration camps, the Gestapo and their courts martial and finally also the
execution squads. The fascist police occupied an essential position in it. They
worked in the occupied areas in the military formations of regiments and / or
battalions of the security police and frequently completed the murder actions
organized by the Secret State Police (The Secret State Police were the Gestapo;
who were a part of the Allgemeine-SS).

After the assault on the
French republic in June 1940, this country was also subjected to the fascist
despotism, which tried with increasing terror, to suppress all opposition.

As was established at the
judgment of the International Military-Tribunal against the chief war criminals
in Nuremberg in the year 1946, the SS was one of the most important fascist
instruments of terror and that it was developed into a highly disciplined
organization and was composed of the elite of National Socialism.

The chief of the SS,
Himmler, had asked the SS with cynical candour, "to be hard and ruthless, and
thanked, that they were not finicky with the sight of hundreds and thousands of
corpses of their victims". Barbaric terror and contempt for life belonged to the
nature of their determination in the close network of oppression over almost the
whole of Europe. Spreading fear and horror in the occupied countries, there was
no crime, about which the SS had second thoughts. Crimes to people of other
races, to opponents of Nazi Germany, became a matter of course and the subject
of pride (see the Nurnberg trials, Rütten and Loening, 1. Edition, Berlin 1957,
Bd.I, S.224). Led by officers, that frankly identified themselves with the
fascist ideology; the SS murdered and plundered everywhere where it was met with
resistance or where the population should be terrorized by fear and terror. The
SS in all its arrangements was proclaimed in the Nurnberg verdict against the
main war criminals, as being an illegal organisation (see, The SS: Alibi of a
Nation 1922-45. by Gerald Reitlinger).

After the invasion of the
allied troops in Northern France in June 1944, the Divisions of the Waffen-SS
that were stationed in the south of France marched to the war zone. As the
consultant in the main hearing stated, the Commander in Chief West (this was
Hugo Sperrle: see the Sperrle Orders) gave the principle instruction to fight
the Resistance with all means whilst on the march to the second front. The
Waffen-SS fulfilled this job, strengthening public opposition against itself by
means of cruel hardness. However, they hesitated to apply the annihilation
tactics gained in their experiences of partisan fighting in the occupied Soviet
areas.

The accused was first a
member of the fascist protection-police and until the end of the war an officer
of the Waffen-SS.

2. The personal
circumstances of the accused.

(This section was not
available at the time of translating this document).

3. The circumstances.

The accused is accused of
having committed severe war crimes and crimes against humanity during his
affiliation to the fascist police and the Waffen-SS.

3.1 Offenses in connection
with the assassination of Heydrich.

The assassination of the
infamous Deputy Reichs Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, SS Obergruppenführer
Heydrich (he effectively took over from the titular Reichs Protector, Konstantin
Freiherr von Neurath) on the 27 May 1942, was used by the fascist leadership as
an excuse to proceed with great brutality against the Czech people in the
occupied area, to practice cruel vengeance and to accelerate the Germanising of
large parts of the Czechoslovak population. During the evening of the
assassination, Himmler arranged, by a telegram to SS-Gruppenführer Frank, to
arrest 10,000 Czech citizens as hostages, especially those from the
intelligencia, and to shoot 100 the same night. The fascists led manhunts in the
entire protectorate, planned arrests in large numbers and murdered men, women
and teenagers. Arbitrarily accused by the Gestapo at so-called courts martial
of, "Approving of the assassination", or, "Of non-compliance with the police
reporting regulations", these measures were used to further justify their
actions. The corresponding decrees and writs as well as the implemented actions
were published in press and radio broadcasting as well as through public
posters. The homicidal commands of the Gestapo were enforced by the police
units, among others those at the barracks at Pardubice, (65 miles east of
Prague) at which the accused was stationed.

Even the fascist documents
read out in the hearing of evidence, pointed out that the murder of the victims
was ordered by the police in hundreds of cases alone, because of their
"Approving of the assassination", or, "Of non-compliance of the police reporting
regulations" (that is they were accused of approving of the assassination of
Heydrich, or not giving information to the authorities concerning it).

Altogether, by the middle of
June 1942, 1,357 people were murdered as a consequence of the reprisals and a
further 3,188 were killed in the concentration camps.

Especially severe crimes of
the fascists were represented by the annihilation of the places Lidice and
Lezaky. Lidice with its 99 houses was burned down completely on the
10.6.1942(exactly two years before Oradour was attacked) and its 199 male
inhabitants over 15 years being shot there at the same time. 184 women went into
the concentration camp at Ravensbrück, 88 children into the camp at
Litzmannstadt and 7 children under one year were carried off to Prague. Three
children that were so-called 'ethnic German' in the fascist race terminology
were released for Germanisation.

On the 24.06.1942, the place
Lezaky was wiped out. Its eight houses were first plundered and then were burned
down. 18 men and 19 women, the youngest 16, the oldest person 74 years old were
murdered in the Pardubice barracks and their 14 children were carried off.

One of the Penal System
Organisations used for these crimes was Reserve Police-Battalion Kolin that was
used east of Prague in the locations of Kolin, Pardubice (Pardubitz), Nachod and
Hradec Kralove (Königgrätz) and which was led by the already mentioned Battalion
Commander Got(xxxx) (the full name is not spelled out in the document, but for
example in this case, may have been 'Gottlib').

In accordance with the
instruction Ia - Tgb.Nr.246/42 (g) - of 2.6.1942 of the commander of the
Security Police for the Protectorate in Prague, the unit of (Battalion
Commander) Got(xxxx) did not only search as well as other safeguarding pursuit
measures, but was responsible subordinately to the central leadership to support
prosecution measures of the Gestapo, also for the shooting of the Gestapo
supplied individuals. The location of Pardubice was chosen as the main murder
place in this area, because afterwards, the victims of the Gestapo could be
burnt in the local crematory under their own supervision of the employees of the
crematory; according to the witness Cha(xxxx) and Dal(xxxx) and could have had
handed over the ashes of the dead person to themselves for the purpose of the
total elimination of the tracks of the crime.

Feustel, the leader of the
Gestapo foreign office Kolin; convicted by the city court in Berlin on the
11.12.1972 (101a BS 55/72), and the leaders of the offices of the Gestapo in and
around Pardubice, had murdered at the time 178 nominally well known Czech
citizens between the 3.6.1942 to the 9.7.1942 alone, through the units of the
reserve police Pardubice and in the crematorium there. Moreover, as the
witnesses explained, many persons were burned so as to disguise the cruelties
committed on them by the Gestapo during the interrogations.

A small depression in the
ground was used as an execution site in the barracks at Pardubice, in the forest
that was close to the so-called 'Small Palace' that was included within the
barracks area. Up to five victims at a time were paraded and were fastened with
interconnecting eyes at posts. Special Shooting-Commandos, that consisted of 5
to 15, mainly voluntary marksmen, carried out the killings by means of aimed
shots under the direction of a police officer. Victims still living afterwards
were killed by the officer with a pistol shot. The killing, the evacuation of
the corpses and their combustion with subsequent transfer of the ashes, took
place under the non-stop supervision of the Gestapo. The execution commands that
contained futile accusations, such as, "Approving of the assassination" were
read out to the citizens about to be murdered. The victims frequently rejected
these accusations and accused their torturers of the murder. The records of the
fascists recording all details of the shootings, which were read out in the
hearing of evidence, prove that. During his membership of the 1st Preparatory
Training Course for Reserve Officer Candidates in Klatovy, from the middle of
May 1942 up to the 17th June 1942 the accused, directly after the assassination
of Heydrich, went for a short time with the course participants to Prague, where
he took part in raids and searches of residential areas near Wenceslas Square.
On the 9.6.1942, volunteers were sought from the circle of participants of the
course of the accused, for the shooting of four people. The accused reported and
belonged to the command of 10 marksmen under the leadership of Lieutenant Hänel.
The observed victims were shot by himself on the firing range of the Education
Unit outside Klatovy near Luby. The accused aimed and shot in each case at the
heart area of the victim assigned to him.

In his location of
Pardubice, the accused had still volunteered in the following period for
shootings. Twice he was assigned to the Execution Commando and once to the
Security Commando and with his weapons, thwarted escape attempts by the victims.

On the 24.6.1942 at 21:15
began the assassination of 33 well known by name victims of Lezaky in the
Pardubice barracks grounds. The accused belonged to the comprehensive command of
15 marksmen that planned the shooting under the leadership of its then company
leader, Lieutenant Preuss. In addition the victims, were paraded in 11 groups of
3 persons before the Gestapo, also the children were torn from the side of their
mothers. The accused shot at the hearts of the victims.

On the 2.7.1942, the Gestapo
arranged for the reserve-police-unit at Pardubice to do the most extensive
shooting. The accused reported voluntarily to the 15-man Execution Commando
under the leadership of Lieutenant Preuss. Around 20.00, the killing of the 30
men and 10 women began in groups of five persons apiece. Also here, the accused
killed through aimed shots into the heart area. Four out of the total of 40
known victims came from Lezaky.

On the 9.7.1942, between
19:00 and 20:00, 12 men and 3 women, whose names were determined in the main
hearing, were killed at the same murder place by a 10 strong commando of
marksmen under the leadership of Lieutenant Preuss. This time the accused was
allotted the Security Commando. With this, (the Security Commando) he
covered the ordered position and safeguarded the scene of the crime with weapons
ready to fire.

Summarizing: it has been
established that the accused, in the time from 9.6.1942 up to the 9.7.1942 was
in four cases; three times as member of an Execution Commando and once in a
Security Commando was involved in the murder of 92 Czech men and women.

3.2. The destruction of
Oradour.

At the beginning of the year
1944, the accused was an SS-Untersturmführer in the SS-Division Das Reich and
employed in the education of NCOs' to refill the units smashed at the eastern
front. This SS-Division was stationed in the south of France (around
Montauban).

On the 6.6.1944, the Allied
Forces opened the Second Front in Northern France. The accused this time was
leader of the 1st Platoon, of the 3rd Company, under its company-leader,
SS-Hauptsturmführer Ka(hn), of the 1st Battalion under SS-Sturmbannführer
Diekmann of the 4th SS-Panzer-Grenadier Regiment Der Führer, under its commander
SS-Standartenführer Stadler. This regiment was a component of the 2nd
SS-Panzer-Division, Das Reich under the command of, General of the Waffen-SS,
SS-Oberführer Lammerding (Lammerding's official rank within the Waffen-SS at
this time was that of an SS-Brigadeführer).

The commands of the
leadership given to the SS units on the march to the war scene in the north of
France, demanded at the same time of all members of the fascist garrison powers,
vis-à-vis the French, "sharpest measures" and "ruthless hardness". Military
education and national socialist upbringing of the SS officers in such squads
were to guarantee that these commands would be with merciless consequences put
into action. Every opposition would be smothered in blood. In the daily reports
of the units, the number French citizens that were named as "enemy dead" was
presented as news of success.

For instance, on the
7.6.1944, the accused's unit was shot at in Frayssinet-le-Gelat whilst on march
to the village. That accordingly caused the instructions of the
Commander-in-Chief West (Hugo Sperrle) of the 12.2.1944 over intensified
measures against partisans, to be enacted, in which consequence members of the
3rd Company shot 10 men and hanged 3 women as well as setting on fire properties
in the village. Resistance fighters or suspects had not been found. Meanwhile,
the accused was not at the scene of the crime. Another unit of the division had
the job on the 9.6.1944 to avenge a resistance-action in the city of Tulle. At
least 99 men were hanged by the SS in the local Avenue de la Gare.

On the same day, Diekmann's
battalion had reached the area of Limoges and was to interrupt the march there
for approximately 3 days. The accused's unit was billeted in St. Junien, where
also the battalion staff had its headquarters.

On the 10.6.1944, the fate
of Oradour was decided. The day before, the commander of the III.Bataillon,
SS-Sturmbannführer Kämpfe, had been captured by partisans. Retaliation and
revenge was to be exercised for it.

On the morning of the
10.June, the accused was ordered to a meeting of the commanders, in which
Diekmann gave the command to the 3rd Company, with reference to a higher
authority, to occupy the village of Oradour-sur-Glane, northwest of Limoges, to
kill the entire population without exception, from infants up to old men and to
burn down the place. In this convenient, militarily insignificant place, no
resistance was to be expected. SS-Sturmbannführer Diekmann took over the command
of the action. Between 12.00 and 12.30, the company started moving with
approximately 10 trucks and at least two armoured vehicles from St. Junien
toward Oradour. Their three platoons, including the Company troop and the
Reconnaissance troop, had 148 SS-members with three officers. Together with
Diekmann and his company, there were at least 150 SS-people. Each platoon was
lightly armed, the Company had heavy machine guns. The remaining marksmen had
carbines. Furthermore, explosives were carried along.

The officers already knew
the orders which were announced to the troops directly before the place at
14.00. The 1st Platoon of the 3rd Company was ordered by the accused to drive
through the place and to surround it. At 14.15, this starting position was
reached without any incident.

It was recognized that in
this showy type of travel through the village and the renunciation of any
military safeguarding of their own forces that the SS reckoned without either
incidents or resistance.

The accused rearranged
groups 1 and 2 with 26 SS-men. He ordered them to prevent escape attempts, by
shooting persons seeking to leave or enter the place. In accordance with this
command, the guard troops appointed by him shot many times at escaping people.

At 14.30, from all sides,
the SS began to comb the place and to drive the inhabitants from their houses to
the centrally situated market place. With the overall 19 remaining SS-men of his
3rd group and the platoons, the accused assumed his assigned section. Others
were occupied holding the market. No one seriously looked for arms and
ammunition.

That the sole goal of the
action was to round up the population on the market place in order to be able to
liquidate them completely, became obvious, any found infirm, non-ambulatory
people were to be shot promptly at their place. By about 15:00 the accused had
evacuated approximately 15 houses and their inhabitants had been driven to the
market, amongst them also were the 64 students of the boys-school with their
teachers. By this time, almost all the inhabitants, including those working in
the fields had been driven together; only a few villagers succeeded in hiding.
At the market place, the women and children were separated from the men and were
taken away to the church. Unsettling scenes happened as a result.

The announcement of a
demand, to declare ammunition stores and the demand for the taking of hostages
was thought to be (deliberately) misleading. The actual goal of the action was
to remain hidden from the population as long as possible.

Towards 15.30, the SS pushed
the men held up until then in six different sized groups into barns, sheds and
garages picked out previously. They were those of Milord, Bouchoule,
Desourteaux, Laudy, Denis and Beaulieu.

That was the situation that
the accused found, when he was called by a summons to Diekmann at the market. He
saw the garage of the Beaulieu family filled with at least 20 men, which was
guarded by members of his platoon there. Diekmann gave him the instruction to
command the shooting of these men on a signal. On the given signal of the
commander (Diekmann), the massacre began at all the murder-places, such that in
a few minutes the male population of Oradour fell victim. Only five survived
this mass shooting (to be strictly accurate six survived the initial shooting
and M. Pouteraud was shot separately in the road to the cemetery a little while
later as he tried to escape).

The accused gave his group
the command to fire and even fired two bursts from his own machine pistol at the
men in the garage.

Lying in pools of blood the
dead and wounded bodies were covered with combustible material and burned, as it
had been ordered from the beginning. How many live bodies died this way in
the flames one has never been able to determine.

The witnesses, whom
successfully escaped from the Laudy barn, were the only ones that could report
on the dreadful experience. From their statements, it is known that living
bodies were still under the shot-to-pieces bodies and that single shots were
delivered to those that still gave signs of life, before the total was set fire.
After the testimonies, it can be said with certainty that victims were burnt
alive. They had exchanged last words with the witnesses.

At the Beaulieu garage, the
accused relayed the order for the combustion, had thrown fuel into the garage
and set it on fire. He had not seen for himself whether living bodies were still
under those shot down. He was of the opinion that no one would have been able to
survive because of the strength of fire of his group.

After the setting on fire of
the murder-places, they began to burn the remaining village.

At the same time, the
fascists also carried out the massacre in the closely surrounded church.

In conclusion, of all
evidence heard over the events in the church, it is no longer possible to
reconstruct the exact course of events with certainty. It can be firmly stated
that a crate with explosives and igniter cords was put at the main altar of the
church and ignited and after an explosion, biting smoke took the air for
breathing from the women and children. Several SS-Soldiers entered into the
church and killed women and children. Desperate attempts to flee from the church
through doors or windows were prevented by shots from the surrounding SS-Guards.
The SS-Soldiers piled up the pews and fuel in the church and set fire to it. The
witness Rou(ffanche) that alone succeeded in escaping from the burning church
and made these observations, was badly injured during her escape through a
church-window, as a result of several shots from the SS-Guards (she was in fact
shot 5 times in the legs).

The accused had ordered,
towards 16:15, on the command of the commander one of his groups to the action
at the church and to participate in the extermination of the women and children.
According to him, he heard the whimper of people from the burning church.

The SS-Soldiers of his
platoon had begun, like the other platoons before and during the massacre in the
church, to systematically burn down the village and to plunder it. The accused
had assigned the sections of his group to do this. At least eight estates were
burned down on this command. From a grocery store, he appropriated cash for
himself with the remark that it was too precious for burning.

In the evening hours, the
village burned down - the ordered destruction of Oradour was accomplished.

The permanent military
tribunal at Bordeaux determined the names of 642 victims with the judgment of
the 13 February 1953. From the children of Oradour, only a single one, the boy
Roger Godfrin, eight-year old at that time, succeeded in eluding the mass-murder
through escape.

Found among the victims are
also those men, who lost their lives by the direct shooting order of the accused
and by his own shots on the day. Those that were amongst them and could be
identified were: Besson, Guillaume; Chapelot, Louis; Jackow, Jean; Lavergne,
Jean; Lavergne, Jean-Baptist; Mirablon, Albert; Moreau, Lucien; Moreau, Pierre;
Peuroulet, Marcel; Pinede, Robert; Valentine, Jean; Bardet, Leonhard; Nicoles,
Jean-Baptist.

With the destroyed place
still before their eyes, Diekmann instructed the officers to keep silence, if
necessary, it should be explained (to outsiders) that during breaking
resistance from partisans, the church, which had been storing ammunition, had
exploded. The accused conveyed this legend to his platoon members in accordance
with the command.

After the retreat of the 3rd
Company to St. Junien, it continued the march in the night to the 11.6.1944.

Another SS-Unit was ordered
in the morning of the following day to Oradour. It hastily buried, mainly in
mass graves a number of corpses, particularly from the church.

Stadler's regimental news of
the 11.6.1944 was: "SS-Panzer-Grenadier-Regiment 4, Der Führer continued the
clean-up operation on the 10. and 11.6.1944 in the area. SS-Der Führer marched
on 10 6 1944 to Oradour and surrounded the place. This was burned down after a
search of the place. Ammunition was stored in almost every house ....

Results 548 enemy dead - Our
casualties, 1 dead 1 wounded"

Those injured SS-Personnel
were in both cases victims of their own fury in the village.

In the future, the fascist
command centres tried to hush up with a multiplicity of lies and concealments
the actual happening itself, with the legend distributed by Diekmann covering up
the core of what happened.

The inconsistent and in part
manifestly wrong explanations of the witness Okr(ent), formerly
SS-Obersturmbannführer and chief judge of the SS-Division "Das Reich", leads to
no conclusion as to whether court martial examinations were enforced (see Kahn's
Dortmund statement of 1963 where he says that Detlef
Okrent took his statement after Oradour). Anyway, nobody was brought to account. The accused
was also not an involved officer at any time(this
means that in the eyes of the Das Reich judicial system, Barth was not
considered responsible in any way the massacre).

For his participation in the
crimes at Oradour-sur-Glane, the accused was sentenced to death in his absence
by the permanent military tribunal at Bordeaux on the 13th February 1953,
however the decision of the execution limitation of the 12.2.1973 now applies
(this meant that Barth would not now be executed because of the East German
Statute of Limitations for such War Crimes and neither would he be returned to
France).

4. Evidence and Assessment
of the Evidence

The prominent facts of the
case are the outcome of the hearing of evidence. It is based on the extensive
statements of the accused and the statements of the witnesses, spoken and / or
read out in the main hearing: Deg., Ueb., Cha., Dal., Heb., Bea., Bor., Mac.,
Bro., Dar., Ro., Thu., Da., Els., Gra., Boo., Okr. und Ka. (again, the names are
abbreviated and the evidence is not itemised in this trial summary).

Records and documents of the
person of the accused, as well as of the places of the events, photo
documentation and minutes of the actions and in addition available investigation
reports, as well as military documents were included into the hearing of
evidence. As experts, Dr. Sik of the Czechoslovakian government commission for
the pursuit of Nazi war crimes and Dr. Ges of the military historical institute
of the GDR were heard.

The objective evidence from
personnel records about the accused before 1945, with his completely proven
membership of the Protection Police of the Reserve, including precise proof of
his presence and functions at the crime scenes in Luby and Pardubice, stands in
complete agreement with the confession of the accused in his participation at
the shootings in the CSR (Czechoslovak Republic). Is expressly noted in
the records about the shootings in Luby by Klatovy on the 9.6.1942 that the
Execution Commando was drawn from participants on the Preparation Course for
Reserve Officer Candidates. The confession of the accused, who was present as a
course participant, is adequately objective and free from contradiction.

After the end of the course
on the 17.6.1942, the accused took part in two mass shootings in his location at
Pardubice. It is about those of the 24.6.1942 and of the 2.7.1942. that his
confession is confirmed also as leader, by the shooting records of his
commander; therefore, his unit is expressly identified as a Killing Commando by
documents. The same observations apply to the confession and records content
over the shooting on the 9.7.1942, in which the accused took part as a security
guard. The explanations of the accused correspond with the objective evidence,
supported additionally by the statements and records of the witnesses Cha. and
Dal. (notice again the abbreviation of the witnesses' names).

The accused killed on the
three days established, as well as in every case secured the scene of the crime
with his weapon ready to fire. He acted because he was confident of the fascist
ideology with its humanity despising theories and wanted to earn his place in
this system. He decided in these circumstances, as a member of the Occupation
Force to commit these actions on foreign territory.

The killing actions of the
fascists after the assassination (of Heydrich) were retaliation and
deterrence measures, which the accused also recognized, and they were as such
propagated extensively, as was proven in the main hearing through the documents
read-out.

The decisive participation
of the accused in the crimes at Oradour-sur-Glane is also proven free from
doubt, as a result of the hearing of evidence. His confession became confirmed
through the testimonies, as well as the objective proof of his membership as
leader of the massacre executing 1st Platoon of the 3rd Company of the
SS-Regiment Der Führer as a part of the SS-Panzer-Division Das Reich. He was one
of the four directly responsible SS-Officers at the place of the crime and that
as well as his superior's command to murder hundreds of men, women and children,
he implemented and assumed through his own command personal participation in the
killings.

The statements of the
accused and the witnesses, the documentary conclusions to the events in Oradour
of the French archive of the investigation office for hostile war-crimes and
further documents, verify again the certainty, that no military confrontation
took place in Oradour-sur-Glane but that it was destroyed for the purpose of
naked vengeance and deterrence alone, that this terror act of last resort, was
used like others before it and afterwards, to retard the unfavourable course of
the war for the fascists.

5. Legal assessment

That in these proceedings
for judging actions against the Czech and French people almost four decades have
past, but for no hour have they been ousted from the memory of peace loving
people, they remained alive as a depressing experience from history, because
only the constant consciousness of this cruel time and its cause as well as the
certainty of a just punishment for such war - and the crimes against humanity by
those responsible - after which passage of time the law reached the perpetrators
- the people are protected against the repetition of such barbarity. Therefore
the German Democratic Republic has in absolute enforcement of the spirit and
letter of the Potsdam agreement of 1945 and the Nuremberg Trials against the
chief war criminals, taken as a basis, the international law principle of the
statute of limitations, as well as the practice of prosecution of Nazi and
war-crimes, as it was fixed from the beginning of its constitution in the
UN-convention of the 26.11.1968.

After article 8 and 91 of
the constitution of the German Democratic Republic is article 6 of the statute
of the International Military Tribunal (IMT-Statute) criminal law currently in
force, like in the judgment of the supreme court of the German Democratic
Republic, as was established against Globke on the 23.7.1963, part G, section I,
- (I Zst (I) 1/63*), - and against Fisher of the 25.3.1966 -, (1 Zst (I) 1/66**
). After that article 6 of the IMT-Statutes determines materially and legally,
which actions are War Crimes. Condemning crimes against humanity is on the
basis of §1 Section 6, Sentence 2 of the Introductory Law, the corresponding
findings of the particular part of the StGB and of the StPO of the 12.1.1968 in
the setting of the criminal framework of 16.6.1977. Insofar as the §§91 Section
2s and 93 Section 3 StGBs come into consideration.

The established actions of
the accused, that he committed as a German during the war against the civilian
population in the areas occupied by Germany, are war crimes according to article
6 of the IMT-Statute. That also pertains to the crimes in the so-called Reichs
Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. In this context, refer to the legal opinion
of the Nuremberg judgment against the chief war criminals, "... these zones
(Bohemia and Moravia) never became incorporated into the Reich..." (the Nuremberg
trial, ibid, S.205).

After the 1.9.1939, in this
area of the CSR, already annexed before the beginning of the war through the
extortion politics of Nazi Germany, deeds were committed against the population
judged as war crimes, in the sense of Article 6 of the IMT-Statute. Those after
Article 6, letter b of the IMT-Statue indicate war crimes in the conquered areas
and at the same time identical crimes against humanity with the alternative
letter c.

While the accused
voluntarily took part himself in the established complex actions in Klatovy and
Pardubice in the assassinations following the Gestapo decisions to kill Czech
citizens, he committed, according to Article 6, letters b and c of the
IMT-Statute, murder of the civilian population during the war. The described
findings include not only the immediate killing of people as acts of murder for
which the accused has to be responsible as a member of the Execution Commando
but also those forms of participation, that were a necessary component to the
implementation of the crimes. The safeguarding of the place of murder with
weapons, to prevent the escape of the to-be murdered people, is therefore
participation in their killing. The participation of the accused in the Security
Commando at Pardubice during the shooting on the 9.7.1942 is consequently found
equally criminal according to Article 6 of the IMT-Statutes.

The accused contributed as
one of the leading officers to the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane. Also, this
action was to be realized in its entirety only when all participants of the
working party made their necessary contribution to the total result. This
consideration underlies the findings of the participation in the sense of the
IMT-Statutes. The accused has to take moderate responsibility for such a state
of affairs. Through command execution, giving of orders, personal shooting and
through the control of his subordinates, the accused made himself guilty
according to the same alternative of the quoted IMT-Statutes. Article 6, letter
b of the IMT-Statutes furthermore places involvement in the wilful destruction
of villages in occupied areas under penalty. The participation of the accused as
a leader of an SS-Unit in the burning down of Oradour is also thus consequently
taken as a basis for condemnation.

The accused acted purposely
in all complex deeds. The prosecution assumes it and agrees with the defence
regarding the full extent of the complex deeds at Oradour.

However, the defence rejects
criminal responsibility for the four deeds accused of happening in the CSR. The
defence is guided essentially by the following arguments.

The accused has, because of
that conveyed ideological attitude of reasoning, interpreted all resistance
against the German occupying powers as a crime he was destined as a policeman to
prevent and punish. Judgments, also those of the so-called Standing Courts, have
been sufficient legitimation for him for the killing. Besides, he had not been
in his status as a Group Leader in a police battalion, in a position to
recognize the illegitimacy of his actions. The actual cause for the fascist
attitude of the accused at the time of his actions, is to be sought in the then
socio-political circumstances that moulded him into a typical product of his
time.

The court has not ignored
this argument from the start. So the Senate also agrees, that the accused was
absolutely the result of his actual upbringing in his attitude, it is however
certain that at the same time the accused attempted to find his place in the
fascist ideological system. It is obvious that not to punish and to free such a
culprit from his criminal actions caused by his fascist ideology, would be
absurd. This point of view is not in this procedure of the crucial importance
however as this formulated the defence. The accused was a convinced fascist. The
actual motive for his decision to agree to the killings, was to realize the wish
in this social order, to be able to follow a career as a civilian police
officer.

Not, the fact of his
ideological stand as an unconditional supporter of the fascist regime justifies
the criminal blame of the accused for the crimes to be judged, but his conscious
decision, to kill members of other nations, which had been subjugated by force
by Nazi Germany, only therefore because they wanted to take up their right to
existence, in that they were not being flexible in the demanded scope, but
welcomed the assassination of the leader of the occupation for example, or to
defend their homes in France as Frenchmen sought, for that which in France like
before in the CSR, completely uninvolved people had to leave their livelihoods.

Type and measure of the
reaction of the German Occupying Power in the foreign states were plainly
recognized deterrents for it against the civilian population, that moreover as
well as in the CSR, also as in France, they were inhuman terribly unequally
recognisable crimes, in whatever form they were always committed.

The accused did not have to
take not part in the dreadful reprisals in the CSR, of which he acquired
knowledge; he volunteered for the killing. Therefore for this crime complex not
even the legal problem of 'following orders' is to be argued. Also, his
participation in the crimes at Oradour finds no justification in orders.
According to Article 8 and Article 6 of the IMT-Statute, acting on orders is not
a reason to exclude punishment, it can under certain circumstances, if
necessary, provide circumstances in mitigation of punishment for participation
in war crimes. The latter is to be answered in the negative here, because he was
in no internal contradiction to the given instructions for destruction, but
agreed absolutely with them.

In completing appreciation
of all objective and subjective facts as well as legal prerequisites, the Senate
decides that the accused is guilty of having purposely committed war crimes and
crimes against humanity against the Czech and French people during the war; in
that he himself on the 9.6, 24.6. and 2.7.1942 acted as executioner as well as
on the 9.7.1942 as a security guard at the assassination of 92 named civilians
of Czechoslovakia, as well as an officer of the Waffen-SS on the 10.6.1944,
involved in the annihilation of Oradour-sur-Glane with its 642 murdered citizens
of the French Republic.

6. Sentence and expenses

The crimes of the accused
are of extraordinary weight. They are marked by unprincipled contempt for the
life and dignity of the people. This attitude had its root in fascism. The
accused was a loyal follower of fascism and dutifully appointed his whole person
for its misanthropic goals. Therein lies the motive for his criminal deeds. He
executed not only commands and murdered people, who did not have the slightest
thing to do with the war-event, but pushed them through with great application,
keeping an eye on it that his subordinates executed these distressing commands
exactly. His career was an incentive at anytime to even greater trying to raise
the expectations of his superiors and to put his faultless fascist attitude to
the proof at any time. Beginning with his voluntary reporting to the execution
commands, the accused has executed each murder command, up to the annihilation
of whole settlements with their inhabitants, without inhibitions. The accused, a
multiplicity of defenceless victims faced eye to eye and neither desperation nor
disgust touched him. He took cash notes himself in order to save them from the
flames; he prevented through his commands that women and children could escape
from the fire in the church. So, all points of view that the defence worked out
for the reason of a lesser blame for the accused, were in the end to be
excluded.

The concealment of his past,
made possible a life of freedom after 1945 for the accused that he had forfeited
through the crimes that he had led. He had achieved this with false and
incomplete statements, carefully worked out and continually repeated.

Another point of view,
brought up by the defence, is that the accused behaved well in our social order
(that is within the German Democratic Republic) and justly reached good
achievements thereby and was several times distinguished for so doing. This fact
in relation to the criminal actions of the accused, has been repeatedly stated
by the Senate, that crimes of such an extent, already met with in other
proceedings with similarly heavy criminal offences are not moderated by the fact
that the perpetrator behaved later in a socially acceptable manner. At the same
time, the Senate includes also the willingness of the accused to accept its view
as to the criminal findings and to admit his blame after the disclosure of the
crimes and to contribute to the full enlightenment of the actions, their
contexts and backgrounds.

So it remains to assess that
the Senate recognizes no reasons, that would be suited to let the guilt appear
less for the weighty deeds of the accused or to be more lenient in the vicinity
of that boundary; so a prison sentence would be appropriate.

It was to be consequently
decided in agreement with the application of the prosecuting attorney and the
accused, to a sentence of lifelong imprisonment.

The court pronounces this
penalty in the name of the people of the German Democratic Republic, whose
highest principles are peace and humanity.

In accordance with §58
Article 3 StGBs, the accused is permanently deprived of his civic rights.